Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 3 cited by

Large-Scale UWB Anchor Calibration and One-Shot Localization Using Gaussian Process

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a Gaussian process trained on sampled UWB ranges, anchored to poses from continuous-time LiDAR-inertial odometry, can calibrate UWB anchors to roughly 2-meter accuracy across a 600 by 450 meter industrial site in a…

desk verdict A useful integration of GP-based UWB anchor calibration with LiDAR odometry, but the headline accuracy is confounded with odometry drift and the evaluation needs an independent reference frame. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16880 v2 pith:67EVKLSB submitted 2024-12-22 cs.RO

Shenghai Yuan , Boyang Lou , Thien-Minh Nguyen , Pengyu Yin , Muqing Cao , Xinghang Xu , Jianping Li , Jie Xu
show 2 more authors
Siyu Chen Lihua Xie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords UWBanchorcalibrationGaussianprocesscontinuous-timeLiDAR-inertialodometryone-shotlocalizationNLoSdescriptor-basedloopclosurelarge-scaleindustrialenvironments
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that UWB anchor calibration does not need GPS, line-of-sight conditions, or repeated survey passes even in large, obstructed, repetitive environments like seaports and warehouses. It proposes a one-shot calibration pass that fuses a continuous-time LiDAR-inertial trajectory with sampled UWB range measurements through a Gaussian process, and shows that the resulting anchor priors make one-shot LiDAR global localization substantially more reliable and faster. If correct, this removes a major cost and reliability bottleneck in deploying UWB for logistics automation at scale.

What carries the argument

The central object is a Gaussian process regression model that treats the UWB range to a fixed anchor as a continuous spatial function f(p) of the robot position p. The input positions come from B-spline interpolation of the continuous-time LiDAR-inertial trajectory at each UWB sampling timestamp, and the kernel is a Matérn 3/2 covariance. An iterative refinement procedure fits the GP at coarse scale, samples the predictive mean on a rectangular grid, averages the top ten sampled values, and updates the model, which lets it localize an anchor even when the sampled trajectory never passes close to the anchor.

What would settle it

Survey the true positions of the ten anchors with an independent, centimeter-accurate method (e.g., total station) and run the one-shot calibration on the same data; if the Gaussian-process anchor estimates deviate by more than roughly 2 meters on average when the odometry trajectory has no external loop closure, the central calibration claim is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that by interpolating a continuous-time LiDAR-inertial odometry trajectory at each UWB measurement time and feeding the resulting pose-range pairs into an iterative Gaussian process regression with a Matérn 3/2 kernel, anchor positions can be estimated to an average error of about 2 meters in a 600x450 m² real-world environment. This calibration runs with a single round of sampling and without GPS or line-of-sight. The calibrated anchors are then used as a prior to filter the search space of an existing descriptor-based place recognition method, raising the one-shot localization success rate from 40.36% to 72.26% on average while reducing mean pose error from 0.536 m to 0.394 m and cutting processing time by roughly two thirds.

Load-bearing premise

The calibration pipeline assumes the LiDAR-inertial odometry trajectory is an accurate global coordinate reference over the full 600 by 450 meter area, so any drift or loop-closure error in that trajectory is inherited directly by every estimated anchor position.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • UWB anchors can be calibrated in large, GPS-denied, NLoS industrial environments with just one vehicle pass, eliminating the hours-long GPS surveying currently required.
  • The calibrated anchor positions act as spatial priors that can be plugged into any descriptor-based loop-closure or place-recognition method, not just the STD descriptor used in the paper, to reduce false matches in repetitive scenes.
  • Because the GP provides a predictive covariance, the same pipeline could flag anchors whose position estimate is uncertain, as happened for the anchor the vehicle never approached.
  • The one-shot localization improvement to roughly 72 percent success rate on an embedded NUC-class computer suggests the approach is practical for cost-constrained logistics robots without a GPU.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The GP-based calibration could be extended to estimate per-anchor UWB range biases jointly with anchor positions, since the paper notes that unmodeled range bias from humidity and longer ranges contributes to the remaining 2-meter error.
  • The UWB-range filtering idea should transfer to other global localization descriptors (e.g., semantic or intensity-based ones), potentially bringing the same success-rate gains to places with even more repetitive geometry.
  • If the GP's covariance is used as an active-learning signal, a planner could decide where to drive the vehicle next to reduce anchor uncertainty, turning the current one-shot pass into a minimal-information-gain survey.
  • Replacing the high-end LiDAR-inertial odometry with a vision-based trajectory estimator, as the paper lists as future work, would test whether the calibration accuracy degrades gracefully with weaker trajectory priors.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a calibration and one-shot localization pipeline for large outdoor UWB networks. A continuous-time LiDAR-inertial odometry (SLICT) trajectory is interpolated at UWB measurement times; a Gaussian process regresses UWB range as a function of pose; an iterative cuboid-sampling refinement yields anchor position estimates. The calibrated anchors are then used as priors to gate stable triangle descriptor (STD) matches, reducing the LiDAR loop-closure search space. Experiments on the MCD dataset over roughly 600x450 m report an average UWB anchor calibration error of 2.031 m and raise one-shot localization success from 36-45% with plain STD to 68-76% with the UWB prior, at reduced processing time.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are substantiated, the work would be a useful practical contribution: it removes the GPS and line-of-sight requirements from UWB anchor calibration in large logistics environments, and it packages the calibrated anchors as a plug-in prior for descriptor-based place recognition. The authors state that datasets and calibration code will be released, which would strengthen reproducibility; the paper also gives candid limitation statements (Section VI) about heuristic parameter choice and LiDAR odometry drift. However, the central numerical claims currently rest on a table arithmetic inconsistency and an unvalidated reference trajectory, so the significance is conditional.

major comments (5)
  1. [Table I] The average error row in Table I is inconsistent with the table's own failure notation. Anchor 0 is marked '-' and the footnote defines '-' as a failure, yet the proposed-method average of 2.031 m is exactly 20.31/10, i.e., it counts A0 as 0 m. Recomputing over the nine successful anchors gives 2.257 m; the GPS row shows the same artifact (25.26 m counts A0 as 0; the nine-anchor mean is 28.07 m). The abstract and Section IV-F claim 'around 2 meters' accuracy, so this arithmetic must be corrected and the failed anchor either excluded with a stated mean or handled by a stated imputation rule. As written, the headline calibration accuracy is numerically wrong by construction.
  2. [Section III-B/C and Section IV-F] The calibration pipeline inherits the global accuracy of the SLICT trajectory without any independent check. Every UWB range is attached to the B-spline interpolated pose p(t) (Section III-B), and those poses are the GP input locations (Section III-C). SLICT is a sliding-window continuous-time LiDAR-inertial odometer (Section III-A), so over a 600x450 m run its absolute drift is unconstrained by loop closures; the paper itself attributes residual anchor error to 'odometry drift' (Section IV-F) and lists 'LiDAR odometry drift also requires correction mechanisms' as a limitation (Section VI). Because the Table I ground truth comes from GPS/survey-map alignment rather than from an independent trajectory estimate, the reported 2 m anchor error is an upper bound on the sum of trajectory drift and anchor-estimation error, not a measurement of anchor error alone. The authors should report the SLICT trajectory's absolute pose error against the survey map (or another global reference) along the calibration run, or otherwise show that drift is small relative to 2 m.
  3. [Section III-C] The Gaussian-process calibration procedure is not described at the level needed to reproduce or assess it. The text states that after an initial coarse fit the method samples 'within a rectangular cuboid region at regular intervals' and averages 'the top 10 sampled values' to update the model, but it never defines the objective by which an anchor position is extracted from the GP over scalar range measurements, nor the cuboid update rule, the stopping criterion, or the kernel/hyperparameter values used in the reported experiments. Since the central claim is that this GP procedure calibrates anchors to roughly 2 m, the missing algorithmic details make the result unverifiable and prevent an NLS-vs-GP comparison from being meaningful.
  4. [Table II] The one-shot localization comparison lacks the statistical support needed for the claimed improvement. No frame counts, number of test queries, or run-to-run variances are given for the success rates in Table II, so the difference between STD+p_gps (49.59%) and STD+p_ours (72.26%) cannot be distinguished from noise. The success criterion (8.5 m / 10 degrees) is also introduced without justification. The authors should report per-sequence query counts and, ideally, repeated trials with perturbed anchor priors or at least bootstrap intervals for the success rates.
  5. [Section IV-C] The paper motivates the GP by saying it is preferable to 'traditional Nonlinear Least Squares' (Section I), but no NLS baseline is evaluated. Table I compares against GPS, OKC, and CT-UWB, all of which fail in this environment; none of these isolates the effect of the GP versus a standard least-squares estimator fed with the same SLICT pose samples. Adding such an NLS baseline is necessary to support the methodological claim and to show that the 2 m result is not simply a property of the SLICT trajectory rather than the GP.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section III-C] There is a typographical duplicate parenthesis in the kernel definition k(p, p′)), and the text says a Matérn 3/2 kernel is used but writes the general Matérn form with ν; state the actual value of ν used in the experiments.
  2. [Abstract] The phrase 'I.e., 600x450 square meter' should be 'i.e., 600x450 m²'.
  3. [Section V] Section V acknowledges that UWB intrinsic range biases were not recalibrated, while Section IV-F attributes the remaining calibration error partly to 'UWB biases at longer ranges'; quantify the observed range-bias magnitude or show that it is negligible at the 2 m level of the claim.
  4. [Figure 3] The legend entries 'Covariance', 'Sampled Traj.', and 'GPS' are not explained in the caption; clarify what the ellipsoids and trajectory colors represent.
  5. [Table II] The localization timings are reported without specifying the hardware used for the STD and STD+ variants; since the text says calibration ran on a desktop GPU and localization on an i7 NUC, state the hardware for each timed result.
  6. [References] References [35] and [38] are incomplete (missing volume/publisher details), and the GitHub link in Contribution 4 should be cited with a version or commit if a stable release exists.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: UWB anchors are calibrated from a LiDAR-inertial trajectory independent of UWB, and the localization gains are measured against external descriptors.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. In Sec. III-A the trajectory state X is optimized only from LiDAR and IMU residuals (f(X)=Σ||r_L||²+Σ||r_I||²), so the poses p(t) used as GP inputs are not functions of the UWB ranges ζ or of the unknown anchor positions. Sec. III-C then treats the anchor calibration as a GP regression from these poses to the measured ranges; the anchor position is inferred from the predictive mean, not fitted as a free parameter to the same quantity that is later reported as the prediction. The one-shot localization stage (Sec. III-D) uses the calibrated anchors only to filter descriptor candidates, and the headline comparison in Table II is between STD without anchors, STD+GPS anchors, and STD+proposed anchors; none of these quantities is produced by re-inserting the output into the input. The principal self-citations (SLICT [33] for CT-LIO and MCD [36] for the dataset) are to published, externally evaluated systems, and the UWB measurements are not used in SLICT's objective, so the trajectory is an independent reference even though it comes from the authors' prior work. The limitation section's admission that 'LiDAR odometry drift also requires correction mechanisms' is a validity caveat about absolute accuracy, not a circularity. No equation reduces to a fitted constant by construction, and no 'prediction' is statistically forced by its own training data.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on four premises the paper does not independently verify: the global accuracy of SLICT, the GP's ability to absorb UWB NLoS bias, the convergence of the ad hoc cuboid search, and the reliability of GPS-derived anchor ground truth. In addition, four tuning parameters are reported only qualitatively. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • GP kernel length-scale ℓ = not reported
    Matérn 3/2 kernel uses ℓ to set spatial correlation; the paper says it is adjusted based on environment and data (Section III-C), but no value or fitting procedure is reported.
  • UWB zone bias δ = not reported
    In Section III-D, δ expands the descriptor search zone and is chosen empirically; no value or cross-validation given.
  • Number and width of UWB range zones = not reported
    Section III-D divides UWB measurements into discrete range zones with 'number of radii chosen empirically'.
  • GP iterative sampling grid parameters = not reported
    The refinement samples 'within a rectangular cuboid region at regular intervals' and averages the top 10 values; grid resolution, cuboid size, and iteration count are not specified (Section III-C).
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SLICT continuous-time LiDAR-inertial poses p(t) are accurate enough to serve as the coordinate reference for UWB ranges over 600x450 m.
    All UWB measurements are paired with interpolated p(t) from SLICT (Section III-B); any global drift or loop error in SLICT propagates directly to anchor estimates, yet no loop closure or map correction is applied during calibration.
  • domain assumption UWB range errors and NLoS bias are spatially correlated and can be captured by the Matérn 3/2 kernel with a zero mean function.
    The GP models f(p) as a zero-mean process with the Matérn kernel (Section III-C); systematic NLoS biases, such as the humidity and range biases mentioned in Section V, are assumed to be learnable from the data rather than explicitly modeled.
  • ad hoc to paper The iterative GP refinement procedure (sample a cuboid, average the top-10 predictions) converges to the true anchor position.
    Section III-C describes the heuristic without proof or ablation; the Anchor 0 failure (Section V) shows the procedure fails when the trajectory does not approach the anchor.
  • domain assumption GPS and survey-map anchor positions used as ground truth are themselves reliable.
    Section IV-A derives ground truth from averaged GPS aligned to a survey map via ICP, but GPS failed or was inaccurate for most anchors (Table I), so the reported errors rest on a partially unavailable ground truth.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large-Scale UWB Anchor Calibration and One-Shot Localization Using Gaussian Process." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/67EVKLSB

@misc{pith2026241216880,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large-Scale UWB Anchor Calibration and One-Shot Localization Using Gaussian Process},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/67EVKLSB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16880}
}
read the original abstract

Ultra-wideband (UWB) is gaining popularity with devices like AirTags for precise home item localization but faces significant challenges when scaled to large environments like seaports. The main challenges are calibration and localization in obstructed conditions, which are common in logistics environments. Traditional calibration methods, dependent on line-of-sight (LoS), are slow, costly, and unreliable in seaports and warehouses, making large-scale localization a significant pain point in the industry. To overcome these challenges, we propose a UWB-LiDAR fusion-based calibration and one-shot localization framework. Our method uses Gaussian Processes to estimate anchor position from continuous-time LiDAR Inertial Odometry with sampled UWB ranges. This approach ensures accurate and reliable calibration with just one round of sampling in large-scale areas, I.e., 600x450 square meter. With the LoS issues, UWB-only localization can be problematic, even when anchor positions are known. We demonstrate that by applying a UWB-range filter, the search range for LiDAR loop closure descriptors is significantly reduced, improving both accuracy and speed. This concept can be applied to other loop closure detection methods, enabling cost-effective localization in large-scale warehouses and seaports. It significantly improves precision in challenging environments where UWB-only and LiDAR-Inertial methods fall short, as shown in the video (https://youtu.be/oY8jQKdM7lU). We will open-source our datasets and calibration codes for community use.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16880 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Survey of UWB-based localization methods and their maximum coverage size, See Sec. II for detailed explanations. be calibrated [5], and the tag requires constant range mea￾surements from multiple anchors, which becomes impractical in occluded environments [6]. This limitation reduces the practicality of UWB in massive areas such as seaports or warehouses, where obstructions present significant hurdles. Adopting UWB … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The system leverages CT-LIO to generate UWB samples for non-parametric GP fitting, calibrating anchor positions. Using these calibrated positions, a range-based search is integrated with the descriptor method for one-shot localization. Additionally, over 100 scans were collected to create a prior map for ground truth verification. interval [ts, te]. The state of SLICT X can be summarized as follows: X = [PITH_FULL_… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The proposed solution achieves better prediction accuracy in real￾world, large-scale UWB experiments. showed potential, but cumulative IMU drift caused the error to grow uncontrollably, and the error went off the chart. GPS performance was similarly poor, with tall buildings obstructing signal reception and leading to frequent GPS lock failures. Even with an RTK GPS base station, the GPS receiver struggled due to th… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Deployment-Ready UWB Localization for Industrial Ground Robots with Automatic Anchor Calibration and Terrain-Aware Fusion

    cs.RO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A two-stage UWB pipeline — auto-calibrated anchors plus a bias-aware manifold EKF — improves indoor/outdoor warehouse localization accuracy and consistency on a commercial AMR.

  2. TAME: Temporal Audio-based Mamba for Enhanced Drone Trajectory Estimation and Classification

    cs.SD 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    TAME applies parallel Mamba state-space models to audio spectrograms and reports state-of-the-art drone trajectory estimation and classification on MMAUD, with unresolved evaluation concerns.

  3. Audio Array-Based 3D UAV Trajectory Estimation with LiDAR Pseudo-Labeling

    cs.RO 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    An audio-only neural network predicts 3D UAV trajectories with 0.48 m average position error on MMAUD, trained with unsupervised LiDAR trajectory estimates as pseudo-labels.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint,

    T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, M. Cao, Y . Lyu, T. H. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Ntu viral: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar dataset, from an aerial vehicle viewpoint,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 270–280, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,

    S. Yuan, H. Wang, and L. Xie, “Survey on localization systems and algorithms for unmanned systems,” Unmanned Systems, vol. 9, no. 02, pp. 129–163, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Accuracy, intra-and inter-unit reliability, and comparison between gps and uwb-based position-tracking systems used for time–motion analyses in soccer,

    A. Bastida Castillo, C. D. G ´omez Carmona, E. De la Cruz S ´anchez, and J. Pino Ortega, “Accuracy, intra-and inter-unit reliability, and comparison between gps and uwb-based position-tracking systems used for time–motion analyses in soccer,” European Journal of Sport Science, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 450–457, 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Self calibration of the anchor nodes for uwb-ir tdoa based indoor positioning system,

    A. Vashistha, A. Gupta, and C. L. Law, “Self calibration of the anchor nodes for uwb-ir tdoa based indoor positioning system,” in 2018 IEEE 4th World F orum on Internet of Things . IEEE, 2018, pp. 688–693

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    Self-localization of ultra-wideband anchors: From theory to practice,

    P. Corbal ´an, G. P. Picco, M. Coors, and V . Jain, “Self-localization of ultra-wideband anchors: From theory to practice,” IEEE Access , vol. 11, pp. 29 711–29 725, 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,

    T.-M. Nguyen, M. Cao, S. Yuan, Y . Lyu, T. H. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Viral-fusion: A visual-inertial-ranging-lidar sensor fusion approach,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 958–977, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Fusionportablev2: A unified multi-sensor dataset for generalized slam across diverse platforms and scalable environments,

    H. Wei, J. Jiao, X. Hu, J. Yu, X. Xie, J. Wu, Y . Zhu, Y . Liu, L. Wang, and M. Liu, “Fusionportablev2: A unified multi-sensor dataset for generalized slam across diverse platforms and scalable environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , 2024

    work page 2024

  8. [8]

    M2dgr: A multi-sensor and multi-scenario slam dataset for ground robots,

    J. Yin, A. Li, T. Li, W. Yu, and D. Zou, “M2dgr: A multi-sensor and multi-scenario slam dataset for ground robots,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2266–2273, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Fast self-calibration method for massive uwb anchors aided by odometry,

    Y . Zhan, Z. Yu, X. Cui, G. Liu, and M. Lu, “Fast self-calibration method for massive uwb anchors aided by odometry,” in Proceedings of the 2024 International Technical Meeting of The Institute of Navi- gation, 2024, pp. 1215–1224

    2024

  2. [10]

    Fast and cost-effective uwb anchor position calibration using a portable slam system,

    C. Hamesse, R. Vleugels, M. Vlaminck, H. Luong, and R. Haelterman, “Fast and cost-effective uwb anchor position calibration using a portable slam system,” IEEE Sensors Journal , 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    Liro: Tightly coupled lidar-inertia-ranging odometry,

    T.-M. Nguyen, M. Cao, S. Yuan, Y . Lyu, T. H. Nguyen, and L. Xie, “Liro: Tightly coupled lidar-inertia-ranging odometry,” in 2021 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2021, pp. 14 484–14 490

    2021

  4. [12]

    Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,

    S. Yuan, Y . Yang, T. H. Nguyen, T.-M. Nguyen, J. Yang, F. Liu, J. Li, H. Wang, and L. Xie, “Mmaud: A comprehensive multi-modal anti-uav dataset for modern miniature drone threats,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2024, pp. 2745–2751

    2024

  5. [13]

    Direct: A differential dy- namic programming based framework for trajectory generation,

    K. Cao, M. Cao, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Direct: A differential dy- namic programming based framework for trajectory generation,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 2439–2446, 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Lio-gvm: an accurate, tightly- coupled lidar-inertial odometry with gaussian voxel map,

    X. Ji, S. Yuan, P. Yin, and L. Xie, “Lio-gvm: an accurate, tightly- coupled lidar-inertial odometry with gaussian voxel map,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 2200–2207, 2024

    2024

  7. [15]

    Selective kalman filter: When and how to fuse multi- sensor information to overcome degeneracy in slam,

    J. Xu, G. Huang, W. Yu, X. Zhang, L. Zhao, R. Li, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Selective kalman filter: When and how to fuse multi- sensor information to overcome degeneracy in slam,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.17235, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Limo-calib: On-site fast lidar-motor calibration for quadruped robot-based panoramic 3d sensing system,

    J. Li, Z. Liu, X. Xu, J. Liu, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Limo-calib: On-site fast lidar-motor calibration for quadruped robot-based panoramic 3d sensing system,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.12655 , 2025

    2025 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Se-calib: Semantic edge-based lidar–camera boresight online calibration in urban scenes,

    Y . Liao, J. Li, S. Kang, Q. Li, G. Zhu, S. Yuan, Z. Dong, and B. Yang, “Se-calib: Semantic edge-based lidar–camera boresight online calibration in urban scenes,” IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing , vol. 61, pp. 1–13, 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    An automatic self-calibration approach for wide baseline stereo cameras using sea surface images,

    H. Wang, W. Mou, X. Mou, S. Yuan, S. Ulun, S. Yang, and B.-S. Shin, “An automatic self-calibration approach for wide baseline stereo cameras using sea surface images,” Unmanned Systems, vol. 3, no. 04, pp. 277–290, 2015

    2015

  11. [19]

    I2ekf-lo: A dual-iteration extended kalman filter based lidar odometry,

    W. Yu, J. Xu, C. Zhao, L. Zhao, T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, M. Bai, and L. Xie, “I2ekf-lo: A dual-iteration extended kalman filter based lidar odometry,” in 2024 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2024, pp. 10 453–10 460

    2024

  12. [20]

    Towards utilizing deep uncertainty in traditional slam,

    M. A. Esfahani, K. Wu, S. Yuan, and H. Wang, “Towards utilizing deep uncertainty in traditional slam,” in 2019 IEEE 15th International Conference on Control and Automation (ICCA) , 2019, pp. 344–349

    2019

  13. [21]

    Uloc: Learning to localize in complex large-scale environments with ultra- wideband ranges,

    T.-M. Nguyen, Y . Yang, T.-D. Nguyen, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Uloc: Learning to localize in complex large-scale environments with ultra- wideband ranges,” in IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2025

    2025

  14. [22]

    Gptr: Gaussian process trajectory representation for continuous-time motion estima- tion,

    T.-M. Nguyen, Z. Cao, K. Li, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Gptr: Gaussian process trajectory representation for continuous-time motion estima- tion,” in arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.22931 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Continuous-time ultra-wideband- inertial fusion,

    K. Li, Z. Cao, and U. D. Hanebeck, “Continuous-time ultra-wideband- inertial fusion,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 4338–4345, 2023

    2023

  16. [24]

    Std: Stable triangle descriptor for 3d place recognition,

    C. Yuan, J. Lin, Z. Zou, X. Hong, and F. Zhang, “Std: Stable triangle descriptor for 3d place recognition,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Towards real-time time- of-arrival self-calibration using ultra-wideband anchors,

    K. Batstone, M. Oskarsson, and K. ˚Astr¨om, “Towards real-time time- of-arrival self-calibration using ultra-wideband anchors,” in 2017 In- ternational Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN). IEEE, 2017, pp. 1–8

    2017

  18. [26]

    Self-calibration of anchor positions for indoor localization,

    W. Yu, X. Zhao, and G. Sun, “Self-calibration of anchor positions for indoor localization,” in 2017 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Biomimetics (ROBIO) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 581–586

    2017

  19. [27]

    Self-calibrating ultra-wideband network supporting multi-robot localization,

    M. Hamer and R. D’Andrea, “Self-calibrating ultra-wideband network supporting multi-robot localization,” Ieee Access , vol. 6, pp. 22 292– 22 304, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    Range bias modeling and autocalibration of an uwb positioning system,

    A. De Preter, G. Goysens, J. Anthonis, J. Swevers, and G. Pipeleers, “Range bias modeling and autocalibration of an uwb positioning system,” in 2019 International Conference on Indoor Positioning and Indoor Navigation (IPIN) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1–8

    2019

  21. [29]

    Anchor self-localization algorithm based on uwb ranging and inertial measurements,

    Q. Shi, S. Zhao, X. Cui, M. Lu, and M. Jia, “Anchor self-localization algorithm based on uwb ranging and inertial measurements,” Tsinghua Science and Technology , vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 728–737, 2019

    2019

  22. [30]

    Autocalibration of a mobile uwb localization system for ad-hoc multi-robot deployments in gnss-denied environments,

    C. M. Almansa, W. Shule, J. P. Queralta, and T. Westerlund, “Autocalibration of a mobile uwb localization system for ad-hoc multi-robot deployments in gnss-denied environments,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.06762, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Anchor calibration for real-time- measurement localization systems,

    P. Krape ˇz and M. Munih, “Anchor calibration for real-time- measurement localization systems,” IEEE Transactions on Instrumen- tation and Measurement , vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 9907–9917, 2020

    2020

  24. [32]

    Multihop self-calibration algorithm for ultra-wideband (uwb) anchor node positioning,

    B. Van Herbruggen, S. Luchie, J. Fontaine, and E. De Poorter, “Multihop self-calibration algorithm for ultra-wideband (uwb) anchor node positioning,” IEEE Journal of Indoor and Seamless Positioning and Navigation , vol. 1, pp. 1–11, 2023

    2023

  25. [33]

    Eigen is all you need: Efficient lidar-inertial continuous-time odome- try with internal association,

    T.-M. Nguyen, X. Xu, T. Jin, Y . Yang, J. Li, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Eigen is all you need: Efficient lidar-inertial continuous-time odome- try with internal association,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  26. [34]

    Scikit-learn,

    O. Kramer and O. Kramer, “Scikit-learn,” Machine learning for evolution strategies, pp. 45–53, 2016

    2016

  27. [35]

    Spatial variation. meddelanden fran statens skogsforskn- ingsinstitut.(almaenna foerlaget, stockholm. 91986),(vol 49, issue 5),

    B. Mat ´ern, “Spatial variation. meddelanden fran statens skogsforskn- ingsinstitut.(almaenna foerlaget, stockholm. 91986),(vol 49, issue 5),” 1960

    1960

  28. [36]

    Mcd: Diverse large- scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,

    T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, T. H. Nguyen, P. Yin, H. Cao, L. Xie, M. Woz- niak, P. Jensfelt, M. Thiel, J. Ziegenbein et al. , “Mcd: Diverse large- scale multi-campus dataset for robot perception,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition ...

    2024

  29. [37]

    Decawave ultra-wideband warm-up error correction,

    J. Sidorenko, V . Schatz, N. Scherer-Negenborn, M. Arens, and U. Hugentobler, “Decawave ultra-wideband warm-up error correction,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems , vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 751–760, 2020

    2020

  30. [38]

    Ultra-wideband calibration for indoor positioning,

    J. D. Hol, T. B. Sch ¨on, and F. Gustafsson, “Ultra-wideband calibration for indoor positioning,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Ultra-Wideband, vol. 2. IEEE, 2010, pp. 1–4

    2010

  31. [39]

    Segregator: Global point cloud registration with semantic and geometric cues,

    P. Yin, S. Yuan, H. Cao, X. Ji, S. Zhang, and L. Xie, “Segregator: Global point cloud registration with semantic and geometric cues,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2023, pp. 2848–2854

    2023

  32. [40]

    Outram: One-shot global localization via triangulated scene graph and global outlier pruning,

    P. Yin, H. Cao, T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, S. Zhang, K. Liu, and L. Xie, “Outram: One-shot global localization via triangulated scene graph and global outlier pruning,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2024, pp. 13 717–13 723

    2024

  33. [41]

    Intelligent parameter tuning in optimization-based iterative ct reconstruction via deep reinforcement learning,

    C. Shen, Y . Gonzalez, L. Chen, S. B. Jiang, and X. Jia, “Intelligent parameter tuning in optimization-based iterative ct reconstruction via deep reinforcement learning,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1430–1439, 2018

    2018

  34. [42]

    Pss-ba: Lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,

    J. Li, T.-M. Nguyen, S. Yuan, and L. Xie, “Pss-ba: Lidar bundle adjustment with progressive spatial smoothing,” in Proceedings of the IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2024

    2024

  35. [43]

    Multivariate gaussian process regression for multiscale data assimilation and uncertainty reduction,

    D. A. Barajas-Solano and A. M. Tartakovsky, “Multivariate gaussian process regression for multiscale data assimilation and uncertainty reduction,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.06490 , 2018

    2018 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Airvo: An illumination- robust point-line visual odometry,

    K. Xu, Y . Hao, S. Yuan, C. Wang, and L. Xie, “Airvo: An illumination- robust point-line visual odometry,” in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2023, pp. 3429–3436

    2023

  37. [45]

    Salient sparse visual odometry with pose-only supervision,

    S. Chen, K. Liu, C. Wang, S. Yuan, J. Yang, and L. Xie, “Salient sparse visual odometry with pose-only supervision,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 2024

    2024

  38. [46]

    Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,

    K. Xu, Y . Hao, S. Yuan, C. Wang, and L. Xie, “Airslam: An efficient and illumination-robust point-line visual slam system,” IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , pp. 1–20, 2025

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.